Tree Sizes

[Will_Annand]

Is it just me or do manufacturers make their trees too short.

not to pick on Bachmann, cause every one does it, but...
here is their breakdown in N Scale feet:

N Scale:
Conifers 50-55'
Deciduous 40'

HO Scale:
Conifers 80'
Deciduous 50-55'

O Scale:
Conifers 135'
Deciduous 65-104'

Now up here in Canada, mature Conifers average about 90' - 130' (O Scale)

Decisuous trees average 60-100' (HO scale)

I wish manufactures would market trees in sizes and just include a chart...

"The trees in this package are 4" in height, that would be 16' in O scale,  29' in HO and 40' in N scale.

Then the buyer can make up their own mind what size fits with what they are doing.

[Jim Banner]

And the CN Tower is 1815 feet high, but we wouldn't necessarily want to model it as that.  At 20 real feet in H0 scale, it would dominate the railway.  In fact, with a bunch of it sticking out of the roof of the house, it would probably dominate the neighbourhood.  Same with trees.

Some years ago I saw an S-scale narrow gauge logging railway with scale size trees that would be worth cutting.  They were about 1-1/2 feet high and about 1-1/2 inches diameter at the butt.  It didn't take many of these trees to fill up the layout, and they gave a fine impression that we were looking at a very small portion of a much larger railway.

But most of us want to give the impression that we are looking at a much larger scene that we have room to model.  We will take a 3 chain road allowance and squash it down to 5 or 6 inches in H0 scale.  Then we will place a 3" by 4" 'mansion' on a 4" by 8" lot, trying to create the impression of something much larger than 600 square foot house on a 30 x 60 lot that we have just modelled.  If we plant full scale sized trees along our skinny highway and next to our little house, they will immediately shrink in size and look like a foot path and a doll house.  But if we use 4 to 6 inch trees, our selective compression will have a much better chance of working.

To put it another way, if we had a real mile of H0 track to represent a 100 mile subdivision, we could afford to have everything else in scale too - the roads, the houses, the curves, and even the trees. 

[ebtnut]

A lot has to do with the perspective.  Trees can be any hieght from a 3' sapling to an 80' giant.  Part of what we need to do is force the perspective on our layouts, and using smaller trees towards the back of the scene helps give the illusion of distance.  But, if you have a real foreground scene, then you may need to model a tree at its appropriate scaled size.  This might mean using an "HO" tree on an N scale scene, or an "O" scale tree in an HO scene.  I have seen some layouts, especially modeling logging in O scale, where the modeler has made scale conifers that might be 18 actual inches tall, and really do tower over the trains.

[jward]

since you know what size of tree you want, just buy that size. trees vary in size in different areas, and they vary in shape as well. i know for a fact woodland scenics makes tree kits in a variety of sizes.......

[SteamGene]

I agree with Jim.  We selectively compress a great deal of things.  The same is true of trees.  But if you want "...the forest primeval..." then, if modeling in N, buy HO trees, in HO, O, if O, G, if G - well, build it outdoors where "... only God can make a tree."
Gene

[Will_Annand]

I can see your points, you fellows who model in the giant scales cannot put a prototypical building on a layout.

But those of us in N scale have that luxury.

The only trees I would "buy" are what I would call showcase trees, one tree alone in the yard of a house. Maybe the first row of trees at the edge of a forested area.

For background trees, or to represent the canopy of a grove of trees, I would go with natural products. A group of seedum makes a great canopy. Just put a row of good looking trees out front, and some ground scrub underneath and there you have it.

[Woody Elmore]

Model the SPNG - Owens Valley - no trees.